DOCSLIB.ORG

An Algebraic Characterization of Strictly Piecewise Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Algebraic Characterization of Strictly Piecewise Languages An Algebraic Characterization of Strictly Piecewise Languages Jie Fu, Jeffrey Heinz, and Herbert G. Tanner University of Delaware {jiefu,heinz,btanner}@udel.edu Abstract. This paper provides an algebraic characterization of the Strictly Piecewise class of languages studied by Rogers et al. 2010. These language are a natural subclass of the Piecewise Testable languages (Si- mon 1975) and are relevant to natural language. The algebraic character- ization highlights a similarity between the Strictly Piecewise and Strictly Local languages, and also leads to a procedure which can decide whether a regular language L is Strictly Piecewise in polynomial time in the size of the syntactic monoid for L. 1 Introduction Rogers et al. [12] study the Strictly Piecewise (SP), which are a proper subclass of the Piecewise Testable (PT) languages of Simon [13]. The Strictly Piecewise languages are interesting for two reasons. First, there are several senses in which the SP class is natural. For example, SP is exactly the class of those languages closed under subsequence [12]. Also, they bear the same relation to Piecewise Testable languages that the Strictly Local (SL) bear to Locally Testable (LT) languages [10, 12]. Second, this class expresses some of the kinds of long-distance dependencies found in natural language [6, 12]. While Rogers et al. provide several characterizations of SP languages, they do not provide an algebraic one. Also, the procedure they give for deciding whether a regular language L belongs to SP is exponential in the size of the smallest deterministic acceptor for L. This paper aims to address these issues. An algebraic characterization for the SP class is provided. This result not only reveals an important similarity between the SP and SL languages, but also leads to a procedure which decides whether L belongs to SP in time quadratic in the size of syntactic monoid for L. However, it remains an open question whether a polynomial time decision procedure exists in the size of the smallest deterministic acceptor. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews foundational concepts and notation. Section 3 defines the Piecewise Testable (PT), Strictly Piecewise (SP), and Stricly Local (SL) classes. Section 4 presents our algebraic characterization of the SP class and Section 5 describes the polynomial-time decision procedure. Finally, Section 6 concludes. This research is supported by grant #1035577 from the National Science Foundation. M. Ogihara and J. Tarui (Eds.): TAMC 2011, LNCS 6648, pp. 252–263, 2011. c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011 An Algebraic Characterization of Strictly Piecewise Languages 253 2 Preliminaries A semigroup is a set with an associative operation. A monoid is a semigroup with an identity element (written 1). If S is a semigroup, S1 denotes the monoid equal to S if 1 ∈ S and to S ∪{1} otherwise. A zero is an element 0 such that, for every s ∈ S, s0=0s =0.Thefree semigroup (monoid) of a set S is the set of all finite sequences of one (zero) or more elements from S. If x is an element of set S and π a partition of S,theblock of π containing x is [x]π. The partition of S induced by an equivalence relation ρ is S/ρ.A right (left) congruence is a partition such that if [x]π =[y]π then [xz]π =[yz]π ([zx]π =[zy]π). A congruence is both a left and a right congruence. Following Clifford [2], a left (right) ideal of a semigroup S is a non-empty subset T of S such that ST ⊆ T (TS ⊆ T ). The left (right) ideal of S generated by T is T ∪ ST = S1T (T ∪ TS = TS1). The principal left (right) ideal of S generated by t ∈ T is PL(t)=S1t (PR(t)=tS1). Let Σ denote a finite set, called the alphabet.SetsΣ+ and Σ∗ denote the free semigroup and free monoid of Σ, respectively. We refer to the elements of Σ+ and Σ∗ as strings and words interchangeably. The unique string of length zero is denoted λ.ThesetΣ≤k denotes the set of all words of length at most k. The length of a string u is denoted |u|,and|w|σ denotes the number of occurences of σ in w.Astringv is a factor of w iff there exist strings x, y ∈ Σ∗ such that w = xvy.Astringv is a prefix (suffix)ofw iff there exist x ∈ Σ∗ such that w = vx (w = xv). A string v is a subsequence of string w iff v = σ1 ···σn ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ and w ∈ Σ σ1Σ ···Σ σnΣ ,andwewritev w. Languages are subsets of Σ . The complement of a language L is L = {w ∈ Σ∗ : w ∈ L}. A semiautomaton is a tuple A = {Q, Σ, T },whereQ is a non-empty finite set of states and Σ is the alphabet. The transition function is a partial function T : Q × Σ → Q. The domain of the transition function is expanded to Q × Σ∗ recursively as follows. For all q ∈ Q, T (q, λ)=q and for all w ∈ Σ∗ and σ ∈ Σ, T (q, wa)=T (T (q, w),a). It follows that T (q, xy)=T (T (q, x),y). By definition semi-automata are deterministic. A finite-state automaton (FSA) is a tuple A = {Q, q0,Qf ,Σ,T},where {Q, Σ, T } is a semi-automaton, q0 ∈ Q is the initial state, and Qf ⊆ Q is a ∗ set of final states. The language recognized by A is {w ∈ Σ : T (q0,w) ∈ Qf }. A language L is regular iff there exists a FSA recognizing it. For every regular language L there is a unique (up to isomorphism) automaton with the fewest number of states recognizing L called the canonical FSA for L. A state q of an automaton is a sink state iff, for all σ ∈ Σ,ifT (q, σ) is defined then T (q, σ)=q. One can always make the transition function total by adding a nonfinal sink state and directing all the missing transitions for each state to this sink. When the sink state is added to a canonical acceptor, it is the only state which is both a sink and nonfinal. The resulting automaton is complete. For any automaton A and state q ∈ Q,letρq be that relation such that, for ∗ all elements x and y of Σ , xρqy iff T (q, x)=T (q, y). More generally, let 254 J.Fu,J.Heinz,H.G.Tanner q1 ··· qn fx = . T (q1,x) ··· T (qn,x) ∗ ∗ For all x, y ∈ Σ ,letxρy iff fx = fy. The equivalence relation ρ over Σ induces a congruence over Σ∗ [15]. The index of ρ is finite because Q is finite. ∗ Let FA = {fx : x ∈ Σ } denote the finite monoid of mappings and I¯(A)= ∗ Σ /ρ.ThenFA is isomorphic to I¯(A) under the correspondence of fx of FA with [x]ofI¯(A), where [x]istheρ-congruence coset containing x of Σ∗.Inthis paper, when writing fx and [x], we choose x to be a shortest-length element in the congruence class without any ambiguity. For FSA A,whereA is the associated semiautomaton of A, FA is called the transformation semigroup and I¯(A)isthecharacteristic semigroup of A. Elements fx of FA canalsobewritteninmatrixformμx, where the rows and columns indicate states in Q = {q1,...,qn} and μx[i, j]=1iffT (qi,x)=qj. The set of matrices is another semigroup, the transition semigroup. The name is derived from the fact that each element in this semigroup is a transition ∗ matrix associated to a walk x in A.WewriteUA = {μx : x ∈ Σ }. Clearly UA is isomorphic to I¯(A) under the correspondance of μx of UA with [x]ofI¯(A). Definition 1 (Pin 1997). The syntactic semigroup of a regular language L is the transformation semigroup given by its complete canonical semiautomaton. In the syntactic semigroup of an automaton A,theset of generators of FA is Gen(FA)={fσ : σ ∈ Σ}.Thesyntactic monoid of a regular language L is the 1 syntactic semigroup with identity, Gen(FA)={fσ : σ ∈ Σ ∪ λ}. Pin [11] discusses the equivalence between automata and semigroups. Note that since the transition semigroup UA of A is represented as a semigroup of boolean matrices of order |Q|×|Q|,awordw is recognized by A iff μx(q0,qf )=1 for some final state qf ∈ Qf . It follows that a finite automaton recognizes a regular language L iff its transition semigroup recognizes L. A “monoid graph” is a useful method employed by contemporary algebraic theorists to visualize monoids. The nodes of the graph are elements in the monoid, though an initial node labeled “λ” is included by convention. The labels on edges are the elements in the set of generators of the monoid. Given a monoid s M, x → y iff xs = y,wherex, y ∈ M,ands ∈ Gen(M). The monoid graph of FA is denoted as MG(FA). We mark elements x in the monoid graph as final iff fx ∈ FA and there exists a final state q in the canonical acceptor such that T (q0,x)=q [11]. Examples of monoid graphs are in Figures 1,2, and 3. Definition 2. A unique nonfinal sink state in an automaton A is called zero. An element fx is a zero element of the transformation semigroup iff q ...q f 1 n . x = 0 ... 0 We use the notation fx =0for the transformation semigroup, μx =0for the transition semigroup, and x =0for the free semigroup Σ∗.Thecorresponding zero in the characteristic semigroup I¯(A) is denoted [0]. An Algebraic Characterization of Strictly Piecewise Languages 255 While every complete canonical automaton (except the one recognizing Σ∗)has a unique nonfinal sink state, not every transformation semigroup has a zero.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computing Finite Semigroups
    Computing finite semigroups J. East, A. Egri-Nagy, J. D. Mitchell, and Y. P´eresse August 24, 2018 Abstract Using a variant of Schreier's Theorem, and the theory of Green's relations, we show how to reduce the computation of an arbitrary subsemigroup of a finite regular semigroup to that of certain associated subgroups. Examples of semigroups to which these results apply include many important classes: transformation semigroups, partial permutation semigroups and inverse semigroups, partition monoids, matrix semigroups, and subsemigroups of finite regular Rees matrix and 0-matrix semigroups over groups. For any subsemigroup of such a semigroup, it is possible to, among other things, efficiently compute its size and Green's relations, test membership, factorize elements over the generators, find the semigroup generated by the given subsemigroup and any collection of additional elements, calculate the partial order of the D-classes, test regularity, and determine the idempotents. This is achieved by representing the given subsemigroup without exhaustively enumerating its elements. It is also possible to compute the Green's classes of an element of such a subsemigroup without determining the global structure of the semigroup. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Mathematical prerequisites4 3 From transformation semigroups to arbitrary regular semigroups6 3.1 Actions on Green's classes . .6 3.2 Faithful representations of stabilisers . .7 3.3 A decomposition for Green's classes . .8 3.4 Membership testing . 11 3.5 Classes within classes . 13 4 Specific classes of semigroups 14 4.1 Transformation semigroups . 15 4.2 Partial permutation semigroups and inverse semigroups . 16 4.3 Matrix semigroups .
    [Show full text]
  • Automata, Semigroups and Duality
    Automata, semigroups and duality Mai Gehrke1 Serge Grigorieff2 Jean-Eric´ Pin2 1Radboud Universiteit 2LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot TANCL’07, August 2007, Oxford LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot Outline (1) Four ways of defining languages (2) The profinite world (3) Duality (4) Back to the future LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot Part I Four ways of defining languages LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot Words and languages Words over the alphabet A = {a, b, c}: a, babb, cac, the empty word 1, etc. The set of all words A∗ is the free monoid on A. A language is a set of words. Recognizable (or regular) languages can be defined in various ways: ⊲ by (extended) regular expressions ⊲ by finite automata ⊲ in terms of logic ⊲ by finite monoids LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot Basic operations on languages • Boolean operations: union, intersection, complement. • Product: L1L2 = {u1u2 | u1 ∈ L1,u2 ∈ L2} Example: {ab, a}{a, ba} = {aa, aba, abba}. • Star: L∗ is the submonoid generated by L ∗ L = {u1u2 · · · un | n > 0 and u1,...,un ∈ L} {a, ba}∗ = {1, a, aa, ba, aaa, aba, . .}. LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot Various types of expressions • Regular expressions: union, product, star: (ab)∗ ∪ (ab)∗a • Extended regular expressions (union, intersection, complement, product and star): A∗ \ (bA∗ ∪ A∗aaA∗ ∪ A∗bbA∗) • Star-free expressions (union, intersection, complement, product but no star): ∅c \ (b∅c ∪∅caa∅c ∪∅cbb∅c) LIAFA, CNRS and University Paris Diderot Finite automata a 1 2 The set of states is {1, 2, 3}. b The initial state is 1. b a 3 The final states are 1 and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Idempotent Generated Semigroups and Endomorphism Monoids of Independence Algebras
    Free idempotent generated semigroups and endomorphism monoids of independence algebras Yang Dandan & Victoria Gould Semigroup Forum ISSN 0037-1912 Semigroup Forum DOI 10.1007/s00233-016-9802-0 1 23 Your article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works, as long as the author of the original work is cited. You may self- archive this article on your own website, an institutional repository or funder’s repository and make it publicly available immediately. 1 23 Semigroup Forum DOI 10.1007/s00233-016-9802-0 RESEARCH ARTICLE Free idempotent generated semigroups and endomorphism monoids of independence algebras Yang Dandan1 · Victoria Gould2 Received: 18 January 2016 / Accepted: 3 May 2016 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract We study maximal subgroups of the free idempotent generated semigroup IG(E), where E is the biordered set of idempotents of the endomorphism monoid End A of an independence algebra A, in the case where A has no constants and has finite rank n. It is shown that when n ≥ 3 the maximal subgroup of IG(E) containing a rank 1 idempotent ε is isomorphic to the corresponding maximal subgroup of End A containing ε. The latter is the group of all unary term operations of A. Note that the class of independence algebras with no constants includes sets, free group acts and affine algebras. Keywords Independence algebra · Idempotent · Biordered set 1 Introduction Let S be a semigroup with set E = E(S) of idempotents, and let E denote the subsemigroup of S generated by E.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1905.10901V1 [Cs.LG] 26 May 2019
    Seeing Convolution Through the Eyes of Finite Transformation Semigroup Theory: An Abstract Algebraic Interpretation of Convolutional Neural Networks Andrew Hryniowski1;2;3, Alexander Wong1;2;3 1 Video and Image Processing Research Group, Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo 2 Waterloo Artificial Intelligence Institute, Waterloo, ON 3 DarwinAI Corp., Waterloo, ON fapphryni, [email protected] Abstract of applications, particularly for prediction using structured data. Despite such successes, a major challenge with lever- Researchers are actively trying to gain better insights aging convolutional neural networks is the sheer number of into the representational properties of convolutional neural learnable parameters within such networks, making under- networks for guiding better network designs and for inter- standing and gaining insights about them a daunting task. As preting a network’s computational nature. Gaining such such, researchers are actively trying to gain better insights insights can be an arduous task due to the number of pa- and understanding into the representational properties of rameters in a network and the complexity of a network’s convolutional neural networks, especially since it can lead architecture. Current approaches of neural network inter- to better design and interpretability of such networks. pretation include Bayesian probabilistic interpretations and One direction that holds a lot of promise in improving information theoretic interpretations. In this study, we take a understanding of convolutional neural networks, but is much different approach to studying convolutional neural networks less explored than other approaches, is the construction of by proposing an abstract algebraic interpretation using finite theoretical models and interpretations of such networks. Cur- transformation semigroup theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformation Semigroups and Their Automorphisms
    Transformation Semigroups and their Automorphisms Wolfram Bentz University of Hull Joint work with Jo~aoAra´ujo(CEMAT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Peter J. Cameron (University of St Andrews) York Semigroup York, October 9, 2019 X Let X be a set and TX = X be full transformation monoid on X , under composition. Note that TX contains the symmetric group over X (as its group of units) We will only consider finite X , and more specifically Tn = TXn , Sn = SXn , where Xn = f1;:::; ng for n 2 N For S ≤ Tn, we are looking at the interaction of S \ Sn and S Transformation Monoids and Permutation Groups Wolfram Bentz (Hull) Transformation Semigroups October 9, 2019 2 / 23 Note that TX contains the symmetric group over X (as its group of units) We will only consider finite X , and more specifically Tn = TXn , Sn = SXn , where Xn = f1;:::; ng for n 2 N For S ≤ Tn, we are looking at the interaction of S \ Sn and S Transformation Monoids and Permutation Groups X Let X be a set and TX = X be full transformation monoid on X , under composition. Wolfram Bentz (Hull) Transformation Semigroups October 9, 2019 2 / 23 We will only consider finite X , and more specifically Tn = TXn , Sn = SXn , where Xn = f1;:::; ng for n 2 N For S ≤ Tn, we are looking at the interaction of S \ Sn and S Transformation Monoids and Permutation Groups X Let X be a set and TX = X be full transformation monoid on X , under composition. Note that TX contains the symmetric group over X (as its group of units) Wolfram Bentz (Hull) Transformation Semigroups October 9, 2019 2 / 23 Transformation Monoids and Permutation Groups X Let X be a set and TX = X be full transformation monoid on X , under composition.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quantum Query Complexity Trichotomy for Regular Languages
    A Quantum Query Complexity Trichotomy for Regular Languages Scott Aaronson∗ Daniel Grier† Luke Schaeffer UT Austin MIT MIT [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract We present a trichotomy theorem for the quantum query complexity of regular languages. Every regular language has quantum query complexity Θ(1), Θ˜ (√n), or Θ(n). The extreme uniformity of regular languages prevents them from taking any other asymptotic complexity. This is in contrast to even the context-free languages, which we show can have query complex- ity Θ(nc) for all computable c [1/2,1]. Our result implies an equivalent trichotomy for the approximate degree of regular∈ languages, and a dichotomy—either Θ(1) or Θ(n)—for sensi- tivity, block sensitivity, certificate complexity, deterministic query complexity, and randomized query complexity. The heart of the classification theorem is an explicit quantum algorithm which decides membership in any star-free language in O˜ (√n) time. This well-studied family of the regu- lar languages admits many interesting characterizations, for instance, as those languages ex- pressible as sentences in first-order logic over the natural numbers with the less-than relation. Therefore, not only do the star-free languages capture functions such as OR, they can also ex- press functions such as “there exist a pair of 2’s such that everything between them is a 0.” Thus, we view the algorithm for star-free languages as a nontrivial generalization of Grover’s algorithm which extends the quantum quadratic speedup to a much wider range of string- processing algorithms than was previously known.
    [Show full text]
  • Green's Relations in Finite Transformation Semigroups
    Green’s Relations in Finite Transformation Semigroups Lukas Fleischer Manfred Kufleitner FMI, University of Stuttgart∗ Universitätsstraße 38, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany {fleischer,kufleitner}@fmi.uni-stuttgart.de Abstract. We consider the complexity of Green’s relations when the semigroup is given by transformations on a finite set. Green’s relations can be defined by reachability in the (right/left/two-sided) Cayley graph. The equivalence classes then correspond to the strongly connected com- ponents. It is not difficult to show that, in the worst case, the number of equivalence classes is in the same order of magnitude as the number of el- ements. Another important parameter is the maximal length of a chain of components. Our main contribution is an exponential lower bound for this parameter. There is a simple construction for an arbitrary set of generators. However, the proof for constant alphabet is rather involved. Our results also apply to automata and their syntactic semigroups. 1 Introduction Let Q be a finite set with n elements. There are nn mappings from Q to Q. Such mappings are called transformations and the elements of Q are called states. The composition of transformations defines an associative operation. If Σ is some arbi- trary subset of transformations, we can consider the transformation semigroup S generated by Σ; this is the closure of Σ under composition.1 The set of all trans- arXiv:1703.04941v1 [cs.FL] 15 Mar 2017 formations on Q is called the full transformation semigroup on Q. One can view (Q, Σ) as a description of S. Since every element s of a semigroup S defines a trans- formation x 7→ x · s on S1 = S ∪ {1}, every semigroup S admits such a description ∗ This work was supported by the DFG grants DI 435/5-2 and KU 2716/1-1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Categorical Approach to Syntactic Monoids 11
    Logical Methods in Computer Science Vol. 14(2:9)2018, pp. 1–34 Submitted Jan. 15, 2016 https://lmcs.episciences.org/ Published May 15, 2018 A CATEGORICAL APPROACH TO SYNTACTIC MONOIDS JIRˇ´I ADAMEK´ a, STEFAN MILIUS b, AND HENNING URBAT c a Institut f¨urTheoretische Informatik, Technische Universit¨atBraunschweig, Germany e-mail address: [email protected] b;c Lehrstuhl f¨urTheoretische Informatik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨atErlangen-N¨urnberg, Ger- many e-mail address: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. The syntactic monoid of a language is generalized to the level of a symmetric monoidal closed category D. This allows for a uniform treatment of several notions of syntactic algebras known in the literature, including the syntactic monoids of Rabin and Scott (D “ sets), the syntactic ordered monoids of Pin (D “ posets), the syntactic semirings of Pol´ak(D “ semilattices), and the syntactic associative algebras of Reutenauer (D = vector spaces). Assuming that D is a commutative variety of algebras or ordered algebras, we prove that the syntactic D-monoid of a language L can be constructed as a quotient of a free D-monoid modulo the syntactic congruence of L, and that it is isomorphic to the transition D-monoid of the minimal automaton for L in D. Furthermore, in the case where the variety D is locally finite, we characterize the regular languages as precisely the languages with finite syntactic D-monoids. 1. Introduction One of the successes of the theory of coalgebras is that ideas from automata theory can be developed at a level of abstraction where they apply uniformly to many different types of systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Semigroups
    Syntactic semigroups Jean-Eric Pin LITP/IBP, CNRS, Universit´e Paris VI, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, FRANCE 1 Introduction This chapter gives an overview on what is often called the algebraic theory of finite automata. It deals with languages, automata and semigroups, and has connections with model theory in logic, boolean circuits, symbolic dynamics and topology. Kleene's theorem [70] is usually considered as the foundation of this theory. It shows that the class of recognizable languages (i.e. recognized by finite automata), coincides with the class of rational languages, which are given by rational expressions. The definition of the syntactic mono- id, a monoid canonically attached to each language, was first given in an early paper of Rabin and Scott [128], where the notion is credited to Myhill. It was shown in particular that a language is recognizable if and only if its syntactic monoid is finite. However, the first classification results were rather related to automata [89]. A break-through was realized by Schutzen-¨ berger in the mid sixties [144]. Schutzenb¨ erger made a non trivial use of the syntactic monoid to characterize an important subclass of the rational languages, the star-free languages. Schutzenb¨ erger's theorem states that a language is star-free if and only if its syntactic monoid is finite and aperiodic. This theorem had a considerable influence on the theory. Two other im- portant \syntactic" characterizations were obtained in the early seventies: Simon [152] proved that a language is piecewise testable if and only if its syntactic monoid is finite and J -trivial and Brzozowski-Simon [41] and in- dependently, McNaughton [86] characterized the locally testable languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Typed Monoids – an Eilenberg-Like Theorem for Non Regular Languages
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 35 (2011) Typed Monoids – An Eilenberg-like Theorem for non regular Languages Christoph Behle Andreas Krebs Stephanie Reifferscheid∗ Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut, Universität Tübingen, fbehlec,krebs,reiff[email protected] Abstract Based on different concepts to obtain a finer notion of language recognition via finite monoids we develop an algebraic structure called typed monoid. This leads to an algebraic description of regular and non regular languages. We obtain for each language a unique minimal recognizing typed monoid, the typed syntactic monoid. We prove an Eilenberg-like theorem for varieties of typed monoids as well as a similar correspondence for classes of languages with weaker closure properties. 1 Introduction We present an algebraic viewpoint on the study of formal languages and introduce a new algebraic structure to describe formal languages. We extend the known approach to use language recognition via monoids and morphisms by equipping the monoids with additional information to obtain a finer notion of recognition. In the concept of language recognition by monoids, a language L ⊆ Σ∗ is recognized by a monoid M if there exists a morphism h : Σ∗ ! M and a subset A of M such that L = h−1(A). The syntactic monoid, which is the smallest monoid recognizing L, has emerged as an important tool to study classes of regular languages. Besides problems applying this tool to non regular languages, even for regular languages this instrument lacks precision. One problem is, that not only the syntactic monoid but also the syntactic mor- phism, i.e. the morphism recognizing L via the syntactic monoid, plays an important role: Consider the two languages Lparity, Leven over the alphabet Σ = fa; bg where the first one consists of all words with an even number of a’s while the latter consists of all words of even length.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Semigroup Problem for the Semigroup Reducts of Affine Near-Semirings Over Brandt Semigroups
    SYNTACTIC SEMIGROUP PROBLEM FOR THE SEMIGROUP REDUCTS OF AFFINE NEAR-SEMIRINGS OVER BRANDT SEMIGROUPS JITENDER KUMAR AND K. V. KRISHNA Abstract. The syntactic semigroup problem is to decide whether a given finite semigroup is syntactic or not. This work investigates the syntactic semi- + group problem for both the semigroup reducts of A (Bn), the affine near- semiring over a Brandt semigroup Bn. It is ascertained that both the semi- + group reducts of A (Bn) are syntactic semigroups. 1. Introduction The concept of syntactic semigroup (in particular, syntactic monoid) plays a vi- tal role in algebraic automata theory. In fact, a language is recognizable if and only if its syntactic monoid is finite (cf. [9, 10]). Sch¨utzenberger made a nontrivial use of syntactic semigroups to characterize an important subclass of recognizable lan- guages, viz., star-free languages. Sch¨utzenberger theorem states that a recognizable language is star-free if and only if its syntactic semigroup is finite and aperiodic [11]. Simon established that a recognizable language language is piecewise testable if and only if its syntactic monoid is J -trivial [12]. Syntactic semigroups have been studied in various contexts (e.g., [3, 4]). The syntactic semigroup problem is to decide whether a given finite semigroup is syntactic or not. Many authors have investigated the syntactic semigroup problem for various semigroups. Lallement and Milito proved that any finite semilattice of groups with identity is the syntactic monoid of a recognizable language [8]. In [2], Goralˇc´ıket al. observed that every finite inverse semigroup is syntactic. For a finite monoid M, an algorithm solving syntactic monoid problem for a large class of finite monoids in O(jMj3) time is obtained by Goralˇc´ıkand Koubek [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf, 787.33Kb
    CHAPTER 1 Introduction The concept of a fundamental semigroup, which is a semigroup that cannot be shrunk homomorphically without collapsing idempotents together, was introduced by Munn [25] in 1966, who developed an elegant theory within the class of inverse semigroups, which inspired many researchers in subsequent decades. There is a natural partial order on the set of idempotents of any semigroup, which is given by e ≤ f ⇐⇒ ef = fe = e. In any inverse semigroup idempotents commute, so the product of any two idempotents is idempotent. The set of idempotents becomes a semilattice under ≤, where the greatest lower bound of two idempotents e and f is the product ef. Munn constructed a semigroup TE from an arbitrary semilattice E, which he proved is the maximum fundamental inverse semigroup with semilattice of idempotents E. Any fundamental inverse semigroup with semilattice of idempotents E must be isomorphic to a full subsemigroup of TE. Also, for any inverse semigroup with semilattice of idempotents E, Munn constructed a fundamental representation φ : S → TE with kernel µ = {(a, b) ∈ S × S | (∀e ∈ E) a−1ea = b−1eb} which is the maximum idempotent separating congruence on S. These results demonstrate the importance of TE, since every inverse semigroup with semilattice of idempotents E is a coextension of a fundamental inverse semigroup S/µ with the same semilattice of idem- potents, which is a subsemigroup of TE. For any set X the symmetric inverse semigroup IX = {partial one-one mappings : X → X} is a fundamental inverse semigroup, which is an example of Munn’s construction TE. For more details about Munn’s theory of fundamental inverse semigroups see [22] Section 5.4.
    [Show full text]